New US Army Heat-Ray in Iraq

[SpongeBob 0]

Quote[/b] ]Report: Raytheon 'heat beam' weapon ready for Iraq

Boston Business Journal

Government defense giant Raytheon Co. has developed the first nonlethal weapon that fires a heat beam to repel enemies and reduces the chance of innocent civilians being shot, a Pentagon official said.

Raytheon, the world's largest missile maker, delivered a prototype to the U.S. military last month. The product is expected to be evaluated from February through June to determine whether to equip U.S. forces with it, Colonel David Karcher, director of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, told Bloomberg Business News.

With U.S. casualties in Iraq rising, expectations are growing that Raytheon's weapon, called the Active Denial System, could be sent to Iraq in the next year, according to Charles "Sid'' Heal, commander of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. A former Marine, Heal headed nonlethal-weapons training for the U.S. military in Somalia in 1995 and advised Raytheon on the beam's development.

"It's there, it's ready,'' said Heal, who has felt the weapon's beam and compares it to having a hot iron placed on the skin. "It will likely be in Iraq in the next 12 months. They are very, very close.''

The weapon, mounted on a Humvee vehicle, projects a "focused, speed-of-light millimeter wave energy beam to induce an intolerable heating sensation,'' according to a U.S. Air Force fact sheet. The energy penetrates less than 1/64 of an inch into the skin and the sensation ceases when the target moves out of the beam.

The weapon could be used for crowd control and is effective beyond the range of bullets fired by small arms, Karcher said. The effective range of an AK-47 assault rifle is as far as 273 yards, while an M16A2 rifle has a range of 400 meters.

The primary benefit would be protecting U.S. troops, Heal said. The weapon would also limit deaths of noncombatants, he said.

"This forces your adversary to declare intentions,'' Heal said. "U.S. forces get killed because they are reluctant to shoot. It happens in Iraq every day."

"This is where the future is going,'' Raytheon Chief Executive William Swanson, 55, said at a conference in Tucson, Ariz., where he introduced the weapon to investors Wednesday. "This is the ability to protect our troops, and we're talking about the speed of light.''

Raytheon is two years into a four-year, $40 million development contract, Karcher said. How soon the weapon is deployed will depend on the military's interest, and while the technology may be ready, troops must also be trained on it and engagement rules must be decided by a four-star general, he said.

Heal said the military version would cost about $1 million, and the U.S. military could require many.

Karcher said the first prototype cost about $10 million.

Heal told Bloomberg Business News that Raytheon could expand the market by selling a smaller version to law-enforcement agencies. The company is working on a smaller, tripod-mounted version for police forces, and the price would have to come down to a few hundred thousand dollars each to be affordable, he said.

To be used in conjunction with Nelly being played full blast out of speakers:

Its gettin hot in here, So take off all your clothes

Wasn't there a gun in the first Soldier of Fortune game that lets you to burn dead bodies?

[theavonlady 2]

I can picture the enemy holding up their MREs high on a stick.

[The Real Armstrong 0]

Disgusting if you ask me. This is the kinda stuff that will eventually bring the whole earth down.

I read the whole article and excuse my english but I couldn't understand if the weapon was killable or just to shock soldiers. Either way, it's still going to develop into something worse sooner or later.

Yeauck.

[Jinef 2]

Quote[/b] ]The effective range of an AK-47 assault rifle is as far as 273 yards, while an M16A2 rifle has a range of 400 meters

I don't believe people who write this stuff.

273 yards is roughly 300 metres.

Why change from imperial to metric in mid sentence? Are they too lazy to convert 1 number? Are they trying to hide something. Are they blatantly lying?

US weapon = 400 metres

Dirty arab terrorist weapon = a mere 300 metres

Is this as simplistic as "my gun is bigger than yours"?

Any field manual will tell you both AKs and M16s are capable of accurate fire up to 400 metres and suppressing fire at 500 metres.

Am I reading too much into it or are you just being fed shit by these people every day?

[theavonlady 2]

Disgusting if you ask me. This is the kinda stuff that will eventually bring the whole earth down.

It says:

Quote[/b] ] The energy penetrates less than 1/64 of an inch into the skin and the sensation ceases when the target moves out of the beam.

So you think bullets are better?

Or are you just extra worried about global warming?

[Ares1978 0]

So you think bullets are better?

Hell yes. Think about the potential these weapons have as siege weapons. Against civilians.

[The Real Armstrong 0]

Disgusting if you ask me. This is the kinda stuff that will eventually bring the whole earth down.

It says:

Quote[/b] ] The energy penetrates less than 1/64 of an inch into the skin and the sensation ceases when the target moves out of the beam.

So you think bullets are better?

Or are you just extra worried about global warming?

It's going to develop into something bigger eventually. The first bullet wasn't much compared to modern M16s.

It's also going to get into wrong hands. It'll eventually end up a global weapon that any army (or terrorist faction, or whatever) can buy.

Also what Ares said.

I am against any form of weapon development. The only war development that should exist are simply better defense mechanism.

But since I'm a pacifist as well, we don't need defensive development either.

[FSPilot 0]

So you think bullets are better?

Hell yes. Think about the potential these weapons have as siege weapons. Against civilians.

Compared to bullets!?! Bullets kill. Being moderately burned on 1/64th of your body doesn't.

[hellfish6 7]

Just turn up the power a little bit and you've got yourself a handy laser beam. Good for burning out eyes or burning people.

[kerosene 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's also going to get into wrong hands. It'll eventually end up a global weapon that any army (or terrorist faction, or whatever) can buy

It has to be mounted on a humvee just to be used on one person at a time, how big do you think its going to have to be to be a doomsday weapon?.

Aside from that, other technology wont remain static, nukes, lasers, who knows what else.  This one'll be pretty low on the list of stuff to worry about.   The missile shield and Bushs mini-nukes and Putins alleged super nukes are all in the works and all more of a cause for concern

[Ares1978 0]

So you think bullets are better?

Hell yes. Think about the potential these weapons have as siege weapons. Against civilians.

Compared to bullets!?!  Bullets kill.  Being moderately burned on 1/64th of your body doesn't.

That's a bit narrow minded. With this type of weapon, you could easily lay siege to the entire city and starve every human within it to death. Not to mention the thousand and one ways a dictator can use it to crush demonstrations without having to resort to methods that will only weaken his position.

And bullets don't kill people. Loss of blood kills people.

[kerosene 0]

a mild burn or very hot sensation on the skin dosent though, It wouldnt really a substitute for a gun or artillery shell, why would you encircle a city and point these things at it? What the americans do now at Falluja seems to be fairly good at keeping people in or out.

[SpongeBob 0]

Just turn up the power a little bit and you've got yourself a handy laser beam. Good for burning out eyes or burning people.

I like the way you think.  

[Bordoy 0]

So you think bullets are better?

Yes

[Akira 0]

So Dr. Bush/Evil finally brings out his frickin' lasers.

[Grizzlie 0]

So i have proposition.

Go back to cakes and foam cream!!!

It is for sure non-lethal.

There is no good or bad weapon. There r only bad or good ppl.

[Milkman 1]

Disgusting if you ask me. This is the kinda stuff that will eventually bring the whole earth down.

Oh wow, like Nukes?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]It'll eventually end up a global weapon that any army (or terrorist faction, or whatever) can buy.

At which point someone will have developed a much more effective weapon to counter these weapons (Like frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams ).

[cozza 24]

From GTA3

"Gun dont kill people, death kills. Ask a doctor or Medical Practiner. You can die from a Organ faliure or heart attack, little piece of metal aint the problem."

[FSPilot 0]

That's a bit narrow minded. With this type of weapon, you could easily lay siege to the entire city and starve every human within it to death. Not to mention the thousand and one ways a dictator can use it to crush demonstrations without having to resort to methods that will only weaken his position.

You're being a bit narrow minded, too.

You think you couldn't do the same thing with bullets? Bullets are just easier to come by and easier to use.

And if the USA can barely afford this, what makes you think some 3rd world dictator is going to be able to?

[ozanzac 0]

A natural progression if you ask me.

First the sword, then the bullet.

For temperature, the equivalent of the sword was the heater element, and the bullet, the heat-ray.

Besides, how would you expect them to stop the guy on the left?

[EiZei 0]

Besides, how would you expect them to stop the guy on the left?

With a 12.7mm machinegun?

[DracoPaladore 0]

Disgusting if you ask me. This is the kinda stuff that will eventually bring the whole earth down.

Oh wow, like Nukes?

If the cold war heated up they could have.

[Ares1978 0]

You're being a bit narrow minded, too.

You think you couldn't do the same thing with bullets?  Bullets are just easier to come by and easier to use.

And if the USA can barely afford this, what makes you think some 3rd world dictator is going to be able to?

That's the good thing about bullets, they actually aren't easier to use efficiently for that purpose and I think it's pretty obvious. They can be used for it, but they are nowhere near as efficient. With each of these weapons you would be able to replace hundreds or even thousands of men and vehicles.

Prices will go down, the Chinese will copy it and sell it to 3rd world dictators and the Russians will make their own version of it. And that will happen long before anybody manages to find a way for the average soldier, civilian or resistance fighter to counter it. And what's the difference between the USA and a 3rd world dictator anyway?

[Oligo 1]

Let's not go ballistic. The weapon in question projects an intense beam of millimeter-wavelength microwave radiation. Since the wavelength is of the millimeter scale, the radiation in question is in the high-power end of the microwave part of the radiation spectrum. Such radiation has a quite limited penetrance, human body reflecting about 50% of the stuff, rest being absorbed in skin causing increased thermal motion of molecules (=heats up your skin).

Here is a picture taken with a millimeter-wave imager:

As you can see, humans can be easily seen since they reflect mm-wave radiation, but the gun (made of metal) can be seen even better.

All our handy terrorist/rioter/insurgent/demonstrator/troublemaker has to do is to increase the reflectance of his/her body. Covering yourself with metal mesh (mesh size smaller than 1 mm) will make you immune, tin foil ( ) will do also. Lightweight riot shields are best. Wearing mirrored shades will protect your eyes, so if you have enough self-control, you can still charge the weapon, ignoring the pain and receiving only minor injuries. Whenever there is a will, there is a way.